Debates

Lewis Hamilton has been no stranger to controversy in his first five years in Formula 1.

This has led to claims and counter-claims over whether the FIA stewards treat the McLaren driver too harshly.

With that in mind I’ve compiled data on Hamilton’s many visits to the stewards on a range of minor and major charges, whether he was the innocent or aggrieved party. Do they reveal anything about Hamilton’s form before the stewards?

Hamilton’s first season saw some contentious decisions which gave a foretaste of what was to come.

There were no consequences for Hamilton at the Nurburgring when marshals used a crane to place his car back on the track – Hamilton still inside – after he spun off in a rain storm. The rules were later changed to prevent the same thing from happening again.

Hamilton was judged blameless when Mark Webber and Sebastian Vettel collided behind him during a safety car period in Japan. But, following a second investigation after a new video of the incident, emerged a penalty initially given to Vettel was reduced.

At the season finale Ferrari alleged Hamilton had caused Kimi R?â?ñikk?â?Ânen to lose time in qualifying, but they did not appeal and the stewards did not investigate the incident.

Hamilton lost the championship to Raikkonen in the race. Afterwards the cars of Williams and BMW faced a protest over using fuel of an incorrect temperature. Had they been thrown out and points redistributed, Hamilton might have won the championship, but no such action was taken.

Hamilton was not directly implicated in the ‘spygate’ affair which saw McLaren thrown out of the constructors’ championship and fined $100m.

Many of the penalties Hamilton received in his second season were straightforward and uncontroversial: impeding in Malaysia, taking out Raikkonen in Canada, cutting a corner in France.

However the stewards’ decision to strip him of his victory in Belgium was an absolute travesty.

Hamilton was forced off the track by Raikkonen while battling the Ferrari driver for the lead. Hamilton returned to the track, gave the lead back to Raikkonen, then overtook him at the next corner.

In judging this an illegal move and handing Hamilton a 25-second penalty, the stewards contradicted recent precedent. They handed the win not to the driver Hamilton had allegedly transgressed against, but his team mate, who was never in the hunt for victory.

Hamilton had another penalty for a strange incident with Raikkonen in Japan, where the McLaren driver braked too late for the first corner and ran wide, along with several other cars.

2009

Race

Incident

Outcome

Notes

Australia

Hamilton and McLaren give “deliberately misleading” evidence over circumstance in which Trulli passed him during safety car period

Buemi was eliminated in Q1 but Hamilton probably made no difference to this

McLaren were caught red-handed in Melbourne

Few edicts from the stewards’ office had much consequence for Hamilton in 2009 – with one significant exception.

During a safety car period in the first race of the season Hamilton moved ahead of Jarno Trulli when the Toyota driver went off the track. Under instruction from his team, Hamilton then allowed Trulli to re-pass him, still behind the safety car.

But McLaren gave a different version of events to the stewards, who initially punished Trulli. When the truth emerged Trulli was reinstated and Hamilton disqualified.

The previous year, Hamilton had been warned by the stewards for changing his line more than once while defending his position at Sepang. Unsurprisingly, they escalated his penalty to a drive-through when he repeated the move on Alonso 12 months later.

Hamilton’s penalty for spinning his car in front of Paul di Resta during the Hungarian Grand Prix attracted much comment. Adrian Sutil received a reprimand and $20,000 fine for spinning into the side of Nick Heidfeld in Singapore two years earlier in similar circumstances – a penalty that looks too lenient on Sutil in retrospect.

His collision with Pastor Maldonado in the Monaco Grand Prix might have been avoided had Maldonado shown the kind of awareness Michael Schumacher had when Hamilton made an identical move on the Mercedes driver earlier in the race.

Had Maldonado survived the incident I suspect Hamilton would not have been penalised, as it often seems the stewards place too much weight on the consequences of an incident, rather than whether a drivers’ move was acceptable or not in the first place.

But on the whole Hamilton’s penalties this year have been entirely typical of what would be expected.

Conclusions

You can make a lot of criticisms about the FIA stewards: They are not always consistent. They too rarely give explanations for their more contentious decision.

They use penalties which can vary enormously in effect with the circumstances and produce outcomes that are excessively severe (Spa 2008) or unduly lenient (Valencia 2010).

This goes for all drivers including Lewis Hamilton. Consistent application of the rules is a bugbear for fans of many sports and F1 is no exception.

But the evidence above does not support claims that the stewards pursue a line for or against Hamilton.

“Formula 1’s supposed to be about hard, fair competition. That’s what I’ve tried to do this year, just be fair. There?óÔé¼Ôäós been some real strange situations this year where I?óÔé¼Ôäóm made to look the bad person and, by the looks of it, this weekend be given a penalty. If this is the way it?óÔé¼Ôäós going to keep going it?óÔé¼Ôäós not somewhere I really want to be.”

Four years and some 30-odd incidents later, if Hamilton seriously thought the stewards had it in for him surely he’d be long gone already.

Do you think the stewards have treated Hamilton fairly or unfairly? Which decisions do you agree or disagree with? Have your say in the comments.

If you believe I have overlooked any significant incidents involving Hamilton please supply details in the comments, including a reference to the relevant stewards’ report if possible.

277 comments on Five years, over 35 incidents: Has Hamilton been treated fairly?

Ham-massa monaco, massa tuned in early and to fast (hit the back of webber) on purpose to hit ham and then kept turning into him.

Ham-mald maonaco my opinyon was that ham went for the move, mald new he was there but still just turned in. Cars there dont turn in.

Ham-massa singapore hams fault misjudged his front wing

Ham-massa japan was really massa putting his car on the outside he should have known were lewis would be looking but i would not say a penalty would have been due for either driver.

Ham-massa india massa left the door open on the inside and closed the door at the apex knowing ham was there, very dangerous, harsher penalty than a drive through for massa.

Missed one
Ham-kobiyashi spa i was astonished at everyones view it was hams fault especially how most on this site will say ham was not far enough alongside massa in india when kobiyashi was half a wheel beside ham!!!

Ham-button canada jenson just didnt see him full stop.

Ham-di resta hungary Was somthing of nothing, hams car would have forced di rester further off the track if he didnt move

Ham-maldon belgium was just silly by both but maldonado was alot worse

Ham-massa monaco, massa tuned in early and to fast (hit the back of webber) on purpose to hit ham and then kept turning into him.

No, Massa turned in early doing the same thing Ham was doing- trying to pass the car ahead (Webber). Silly driving by both Massa and Ham at that hairpin, with Massa making a further mistake in the tunnel.

This has nothing to do with Massa’s past record with aggression or overtakes, it’s about the situation at the hairpin on that lap. Massa’s car was a bit up the inside of Webber with Hamilton’s a bit further up the inside of Massa.

And if you want to make it about “aggressiveness”, then you should ask yourself whether LH is being overaggressive, leading to all these needless collisions.

@Keith, i dont know if anyone mentioned this in above comments or not, but HAM-WEB incident in Australia 2010 is not in article…neither of them were given penalties but it surely affected Hamilton-Alonso battle

Who else? That is easy, ill give you 3 examples :
1) Anyone who implies that they are being treated unfairly as a result of their race or colour.
2) Anyone who frequently gets penalized.
3) Anyone who makes lot of mistakes and subsequently results in racing incidences.

I believe anyone who covers any of the above will get this question. ;)

To me, if you look at the bigger picture, the stewarts are fair. The reason why LH gets so many penalties is that he does so many stupid little things (like that donught in Hungary, or not lifting under yellows and such…).

Back to SPA 2008. I didn’t follow that GP at the time, and i’ve just seen the pictures right now, so with a fresh pair of eyes.
To me, Ham could have braked hrder and let Rai through the chicane. He didn’t, cut it and kind of gave the position back. But the way he did it, just letting Rai in front while maintaining the closest of gaps was wrong. I mean that he managed to be right in his gearbox for most of the startline straight, which wouldn’t have been the case if he had tried to stay on the track and lined up behind Rai at the chicane.

I seriously think he should have let Rai through in such a way that he doesn’t gain an advantage for the upcoming corner.

HAM Went all the way around the backside of kimi’s car at that incident, reappearing on the other side then out braked him in the next corner = running in circles. If that isn’t giving the place back, then its just ridiculous.

Regarding Spa 2008….you said, ” that maintaining the closest of gaps is wrong. ” What was Lewis supposed to do………count to ten before he got back on the gas.

Mclaren felt that Lewis gave back any advantage that he had received by cutting the chicane. Mclaren’s trace data showed that Hamilton gave back the lead, because he was 6km/h slower than Raikkonen, and when they crossed the start/finish line Kimi was doing 212km/h and compared to 206km/h for Hamilton.

According to Ron Dennis, race Director Charlie Whiting gave assurances twice…..twice to the Mclaren pitwall that Lewis had driven within the rules……twice……yet he was penalized.

Hamiltonâ€™s(Mclarens) decision to stop his car on the track is investigated No action taken â€“ team mistakenly believed Hamilton had suspension damage lol yeah right just another get jenson past lewis to me.

` Afterwards the cars of Williams and BMW faced a protest over using fuel of an incorrect temperature. Had they been thrown out and points redistributed, Hamilton might have won the championship`, I think it was the shape of things to come.

Not exactly, he had a nice race in Germany, he won. And Korea, I guess the problem is when he falls so far behind. Hamilton behaivoir right know remindsme of Vettel of the mittle fo last year… He is desperate and frustrated…

And remember in India 2011 the flag was yellow and the light was green. A bit confusing I’d say, that is, if the yellow flag(s) was(were) actually seen. This represents a failure by the FIA but Lewis paid the price twice(penalty and as a consequence a tangle with Massa).

Excellent article, it is pretty clear that the number of penalties being handed out in general have increased over the past couple of years and hence Lewis also has got more. As for correct or wrong it generally balances itself out for everyone.

Keith.
I must congratulate you on this article.
Having read through thoroughly, I, find Carl Lewis Hamilton, a man more sinned against than sinning, over his so far short period in F1, he has been penalized more often than other drivers not penalized for similar incidents.
On the basis of that fact.
I have no choice but to conclude that Hamilton has in-fact NOT BEEN TREATED FAIRY!